felicity jane lowde

Since 2007 there has been a 'libel and abuse campaign' against me in the British mainstream media headed up by News International and the Daily Mail which began during a miscarriage of Justice.
This blog contains art and history research notes on the 1888 époque and includes the Whitechapel murders case.

Sunday, 23 August 2015

This blog is progressively coming down over the next couple of weeks as I transfer and update everything I think relevant onto the new blog via this link here. I'm still calling the new blog 'research notes' but still, it's a considerable write up of all the discoveries and much more too as I continue to work on History of Art and the 1880s London case. Enjoy :-)

Monday, 15 June 2015

Over the past few weeks there has been a very exciting discovery showing definitively that the 1888 Royal family ( in particular Prince Eddy) were indeed very involved, and entirely innocent, in the matter of the 1888 Whitechapel murders. I will be blogging on all this later ( busy right now x ). :-) .. also interesting comment on the Olsson Inquest evidence, added to the post on Elisabeth Stride's identity below. :-) Below, Prince Eddy wearing his wedding ring in 1887.

Monday, 29 October 2012

Who is this, below? It's another dandy gent in the business of the Whitechapel murder and the 'Cleveland Street Scandal,' by Walter Sickert. There was quite a crowd, wasn't there! Who is it? ( That is a waiter style cloth beneath his arm n'est ce pas. Perhaps he waited at a restaurant above a pub in Chelsea. Not necessarily though. Very poshe features, aren't they.)

Every time I find evidence of yet another character, I'm asking How on earth did Section d Special Branch police manage to wipe out the history of a generation like that.

But anyway, they haven't achieved it.

Nearly did!

But as Marjorie Lilly phrased it in 1945, on visiting Walter Sickert's old studio, the studio that had previously been Whistlers', 'The Frith', seeing it had been bombed out:

' Lost, all lost! But then I remembered, the pictures, the pictures had survived!' Then I closed the door and made my way down the silent street.'

"Turner, Whistler and Sargent used to drink there." ( The Cross Keys.)

“It is the last original pub around here,” says Terrence Bendixon, who has lived in the area for 45 years and is part of the Chelsea Society, which works to protect the borough’s history. Despite its location and starry alumni, the Cross Keys is an “ordinary local” and was used as exactly that by residents. They are aghast at the thought of it becoming yet another millionaire’s home."

-

Oh! Look at that Pelican on the wall of the Cross Keys pub there. That's a Stuart Freemason symbol, rarely displayed in England, as we've seen. ( Here, an earlier post, 'Stuart Hearts' which covers the matter.) In eighteenth and nineteenth century England, pubs were often local Freemason's haunts; different lodges would often own the various drinking places with their various Freemason symbols. Here is yet more stunning evidence, clear as day, right in our eyes. Evidently the favourite Chelsea drinking haunt of the 'Stuart Masons' of the 'rebel cell'.

John Singer Sergant was ostensibly a part of a 'Rebel Cell' that often gathered at Whistler's studios.( Gone into in this post here.)Therefore in all probability, Walter Sickert and Edgar Degas drank at the Cross Keys and the Phene too, the Cross Keys in particular. And of course Oscar Wilde was there, and, presumably, the other 'Stuart Masons', many of whom were artists and era aristocrats with Jacobinism prominently figuring in their ancestry.

Pencil sketch by Singer Sargent in 1887, below, 'Woman with bow.' This is a very interesting sketch picture isn't it, Whitechapel murder case keenies. Who is this?

Look at this. Below, 'A youth', John Singer Sargent date unknown, c 1880-1920 ( forensic testing needed as with all these revelatory pictures, I am confident as to the testing result.) The son of the woman above? The features are very like.

Who else is it! Compare this Singer Sargent sketch picture 'A youth' with the picture of Walter Sickert's very personal sketch picture of 'Jo', ( Walter Sickert's study of the lost prince 'Jo', the son of Prince Eddy and Mary Jeanette, link here). You'll be aware of course that the emergent pictures of 'mother and son' and 'woman and child' ( in all cases referring ostensibly to Marie Jeanette aka Mary Jane Kelly and her son Jo) are personalised by the individual artist that drew or painted them , and there are ostensibly slight variations between the artists; drawings are more subjective that photographs, even if they are evidence.-----This Singer Sargent sketch 'Woman seated before a piano', c 1880s, below, is worth comparing with the sketch 'Woman with a bow' above; she seems to be one and the same woman, and she seems to be the mother of the boy in the sketch above. The woman seems to be wearing a shawl of exactly the type described by the witnesses at the 'Mary Kelly' inquest. Isn't this a beautiful, melodic picture? (Is that a letter in her hand or is it some sort of tasseled purse? Or is it the top of the back of a chair.) Beautiful still pathos here.

Do you notice that the woman in the sketch 'Woman seated before a piano' and the youthful boy in 'A youth' are in exactly the same pose, with the right hand back in exactly the same way? The two sketches are from two different Singer Sargent collections. John Singer Sargent c 1905 must have decided to sketch the youth, 'Jo', in the same pose as he had once sketched (and possibly painted) his young mother Marie Jeanette 'before the piano' in the early 1880s. You can see a trace of reconstructed piano keys in the sketch picture 'A youth.' Beautiful. ( The two sketch pictures were not done in the same sitting, were they; the materials used and the approach to canvas were different for the two pictures.)To have gone to the lengths of emotive perfection and then to keep silent on secret history . Each one of these artists.

Mendelssohn was the favorite of 'Jo's great grandmother when she was young ( Victoria.) The composer visited the palace.

Here, below, a very helpful 1888 newspaper artist's picture of 'The murdered woman's room', referring to the room at Miller's court, no 13, where Marie Jeanette often lived in the 1880s, where the body of a woman purporting to be 'Marie Jeanette Kelly' or 'Mary Jane Kelly' was found in November 1888. ( Marie was not there continuously in 1888, according to Inquest witnesses.) Notice that in said room, there is, just behind the bed, a writing desk, washstand, or piano like the one in the picture 'Woman before a piano', and two chairs that appear to be exactly like the one on which the woman in the Singer Sergant picture is seated.

There is certainly no reason to conclude that there wasn't a piano in the room at 13 Miller's court at some point in the 1880s. We can see from the newspaper drawings of 1888 that the room was large and that it was 'shabby genteel', 'rag tag and bob tail dandy': suggestive more of aristocratic poverty than anything else. And we know that Marie Jeanette loved to sing- she was heard singing ' A violet from mother's grave', a music hall ditty,( apparently sung for her son) on the night she either died or was removed from Miller's court, never to return to the East End of London.

Below: 'A lost woman in Miller's court' - contemporary picture by a newspaper artist ( unknown artist, but it's very helpful isn't it. He deserved a little credit). Bear in mind though, that this artists impression below will be less accurate than the impressions drawn and painted by Walter Sickert and his artist associates who knew Marie Jeanette personally..or is it much less accurate? It depends on the quality of the forensic artist doesn't it, if he asked around the witnesses for a likeness he will have been capable of producing at least a reasonable one..

Below, another 1888 newspaper picture of 'Mary Kelly', not nearly so good as the one above ( which ostensibly interested Sickert), but it does suggest that the buttoned up, frumpy stoic back street outfits that lovely Marie Jeanette wore in Whitechapel ( which amounted to disguise in her case, really) could have a bit of a 'dowdy' effect on her otherwise lovely appearance.__

The many other pictures of dite 'Mary Kelly' can be found via the links on the side bar. Below, my favorite of Walter Sickert's pictures of her, from his secret and personal sketch collection:

And how about this? These Singer Sargent sketches below also interest me very much, for reasons apparent. The eighteenth century costume, the angel herald, the pen and the letter, ( or is it a pencil and sketch paper, yes I think it is...) the woman and her baby child.

It's a shame there has been so much abuse of my work and my life- if my work had been ready and completed, instead of suffering delays from all the interference that I have received, it could of course have helped with issues such as the Phene and Cross Keys pub matter. This continuous desecration of historic artifacts of great relevance to intriguing secret history and history of art, must be fought. It is quite apparent that the Phene and the Cross Keys must have been confederate artists' and aristocrats' meeting places in the 'Lost Epoque', the 1880s. (As for modern day "'sloanes' and fiancees" and so on, who apparently frequent the pubs, are they a historic beauty?) Still the research serendipity continues, this secret history is definitely meant to come out isn't it. I'm grateful for this.

More Singer Sargent. Is this Elizabeth Stride? Titled 'heads'. She looks like a Whitechapel lady.

Here, below, the mortuary photo of Elizabeth Gustafsdotter aka Stride, regrettably the only photo we have: with mortuary photos of course you don't always have the exact life likeness- if the throat was cut there will be a certain sagging of the skin and flesh round the face that appears in a mortuary photo - and you can see that poor Elizabeth's mouth was tampered with by her assassin too. The face in the Singer Sargent picture above is more likely to be exact. The right ear ( the woman in the picture's right ear) seems exactly representative of Elizabeth's, and it is quite particular. The cheekbones are exactly like, too ( very important). I find that Singer Sargent's woman does have a Swedish air, would you agree?

Witness contributions from prominent 1880s artists associated with Walter Sickert are very helpful in terms of acquitting Walter Sickert of the accusation that he was the 'Whitechapel murderer' ( which is not my only aim, obviously!) and pointing the finger of blame for the monstrosity at Special Branch police and Hanoverian Freemasonry, where it belongs. The mainstay of the accusation leveled at the artist Walter Sickert is that he clearly knew about the murders and all the characters involved in the matter. Well: so, clearly, did all his artist associates, including Degas, Whistler, Renoir, Wilde and Singer Sargent! And furthermore, they are all telling the same story! ( The Special Branch police attack on a Jacobite confederacy and a secret letter delivery service which was intercepted, Special Branch police killed the women couriers working for the service). Which is exactly what you would expect if Walter, and inevitably, his artist associates too, were witnesses to British State corruption and murder.
---

We could do with some evidence that Walter Sickert and John Singer Sargent sketched together. Is there any? It seems there is, and that the sketches might have occurred during tuition from Jimmy Whistler. Look at Singer Sargent's sketch book page titled 'men', here below:

And look here, below, at these sketches from Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection:

And here's a lovely picture of a woman sweeping, also from Walter's secret and personal sketch collection:

This may be evidence that while under Whistler's tution, Walter Sickert also took some tution from Singer Sergant.

Alternatively this may simply be evidence that both artists took example and tuition from Whistler, helpful nonetheless. The sketches look like exercises in body form and activity to me. The sketching is very similar, it looks as if both artists studied during the same session.

How reasonable is that ( cravat) bow, below?

Singer Sergant's picture of William Butler Yeats, whose socialism followed that of William Morris, who -according to the Special Branch police ledgers - was followed all about by Special Branch police, particularly while giving lectures in the 'Berner Street Working Men's Club', outside which Prince Eddy and Marie Jeanette's courier Elizabeth Stride was found assassinated in August 1888.How reasonable is this Yeats poem, 'The Secret Rose'?

William Morris, leading confederate socialist of the 1880s. I love this historical person. Special Branch police hounded him endlessly, out of the country on several occasions, to the point he had to abandon his home - to an artist who considered himself finer, who'd taken his wife. Special Branch police very likely caused William's early death. They were particularly interested in spying on him heading up the Berner Street Club meetings. It was a confederate rebel hub.

And I love his ( unfinished) blackbirds and roses designs. They're the best.

Walter Sickert's picture of William Morris and the little prince, Jo.

William Butler and William Morris - Jacobite confederates, yeees, and I can't help thinking they're two British socialist classics. One's a supreme poet who lead an absolute plonker of a young life with an angry tired looking frump who didn't give much for him, mundane at best, and the other, devoted and genuine, born before his time, was dogged and hounded, as sidelined and kicked around as his fiery ideas were marvelous.

This is a major issue here on these blog pages, ( and in the files of my work which I have not yet published) rendered stunning not by me, but by the artists whose work I put forward. It will break through at some point, I know, the pompous resistance to the discoveries ( which I have encountered in many institutions ) will have to break down. Isn't it tragic the way Europe disrespects secret history and anything an artist has to say about his or her own life. I said to my son, "I have to live on air and water. You'll find me lying in a pauper's grave like Mozart, with my feet sticking up in the air" :-) xx

Edgar Degas and Walter Sickert in1885. Note the aspiring mustache and general appearance in Walter.

Walter saw Edgar Degas regularly throughout the 1880s while he was Jimmy's ( Whistler's) apprentice. Recently this has been reported to have caused friction between Walter and Jimmy due to the latter's much supposed outsize ego and excessive demands on his loyal disciples, the 'Lions of the Butterfly', but I can find no evidence of jealousy of Edgar Degas from Jimmy. On the contrary, there seems to be a great deal of shared inspiration between the two mature masters who had the well documented ( and genuine) profound influence on Walter throughout the the 1880s which was to last his whole life. Walter and Edgar enjoyed a long and productive association following Walter's visist to the latter in France on behalf of 'Mon Maitre' ( Whistler).

When Walter first met the French Maitre in 1884 he was running ( yet another) errand on Whistlers part. When he attended the studio at Paris and they met, he and took his hat of politely, repeating that he was there in behalf of 'Mon Maitre'. When guided round the latest paintings, his top hat clasped to his chest, he looked as politely unimpressed as he could muster, making nonchalant observations such as 'I see,' 'Well', 'Yes'. and 'quite so'. . Walter was extremely diligent in his respects to Jimmy in the early days, he never made a mistake. ' There is only Degas and myself', Whistler said. Not 'There is only me.'Evidently Walter got out of Edgar Degas' studios and staggered down the stairs and collapsed with delight on the road outside, but he said nothing to indictae his true response while there. A number of Walter's secret and personal sketches that he kept all his life appear to have been carried out in Edgar's company as well as in Jimmy's.

Below, a pastel painting by Edgar Degas ostensibly featuring 'Mary Jeanette Stuart', who in Chelsea, Fitzrovia and Whitechapel often went by the name of 'Mary Jane Kelly' , often calling herself 'Marie Jeanette'. She would often call herself 'Marie Jeanette' when in Whitechapel, according to the faithful Whitechapel witnesses of the era, many of whom put it down to a 'fanciful whim'.She would 'put on airs', according to East End and Fitzrovia locals, and seemed to be 'hiding a respectable background'.

..the young Stuart girl's profile's been slightly accentuated, and possibly satirized a tiny bit by Degas, given the context, but it's clearly her nonetheless, isn't it.

Looking at the relevant painting detail, at first one simply sees Marie Jeanette seated at a table, her delicate arms on the table outstretched, and wonders where the letter is. 'Reading a letter', the pastel painting is titled.

See how the sinister looking man smoking a cigar holds a letter to his chest in Edgar Degas' painting.Edgar is apparently indicating that this man is the 'Whitechapel murderer' who has taken Prince Eddy's letter that was destined for Marie Jeanette from her, and that its him who's doing the reading.Just as Marie Jeanette indicated in her message left in the 'Standard' newspaper directly after the night of the 'double murders' ( when two of the world famous 'Whitechapel murders' were committed... one murdered woman was delivering a letter and the other murdered woman is recorded in the National Archive files as having been seen collecting a parcel from a man unidentified in said files moments before she died.... ) where she wrote in a message intended for 'ALBERT EDWARD' ..I have received neither letter nor parcel.' See how in the pastel painting Marie Jeanette seems to be staring past the man at the table, almost as if in her world, he is not present. Ostensibly Edgar is suggesting that this letter stealing character has operated behind the scenes and taken the letter that had been intended for her. And this man, ostensibly, is 'The Whitechapel murderer'. ( In fact as we know there were several men, the murders were committed by Special Branch police and the colloquialism 'Jack the Ripper' is a misnomer.)

In Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection there a very similar man depicted to the one that appears in Edgar Degas' paintings, apparently wandering about Fitzrovia, among the dandy gents. Here, below. It's clearly the same man as the one depicted by Degas in the painting above. The exact way the face is obscured, the cigar, the exact shape of the hat, the stature. Observe the stature closely. That is a senior police officer going about secret business, n'est ce pas. Ostensibly Chief John Littlechild, Commissioner Anderson, or Melville. And I think we can conclude he's got a letter he's intercepted in tucked inside his coat there.

Detail example from a Walter Sickert oil painting below, from the painting 'Ethel coming down the stairs at Newington', ( a disguise of a title) by Walter Sickert ( the man creeps up behind Annie Chapman, he holds a letter in his right hand and a huge knife in his left, he wears what seems to be a dark bowler hat, and there's a cloth pulled down over his face. The hat is slightly different from the hat that appears in Edgar Degas' picture) :

The exquisite record of the 1880s, this 'lost epoque' and the beautiful 'clue pictures' do not uniquely derive from Walter Sickert, nor even from Walter and Jimmy combined. Many era impressionists and post impressionists recorded the events of Cleveland Street and Whitechapel for posterity. Not all depict Marie Jeanette herself with witness style exactitude. Perhaps some heard about her, and others saw her, or even saw it all ( as with walter Sickert and James McNeill Whistler and apparently Edgar Degas.) Below, 'Prince' Pierre Auguste Renoir's' signature upon his beautiful painting 'Woman reading a letter'. She is evidently wearing the white Stuart rose.

Note the similarity of this lovely flower to the white Stuart rose in Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection: ( detail below from his sketch of the Wiley Hanoverian King being confronted by the Act of Succession).
--

....here's a different girl reading a letter, still by Renoir. ( Sketch only.) Is that a white Stuart rose in her hat there. :-) The sketch has recently surfaced in France and been identified as Renoir's.

Below, 'The letter', by Pierre Auguste Renoir. No specific detail is known about this one, interestingly enough. c 1880-1900, and the women are unidentified.

Below, detail from 'The letter', showing the women writing a letter on top a page of a newspaper, presumably one containing the 'personal columns'.

Of course the usage of secret letter delivery services and the personal columns combined for lovers originally emanated from impressionist Paris. The letter that the women are writing in the painting above looks a little like sheet music; or perhaps the composition of a song for sheet music. Renoir has called the painting 'The letter.' ( And nothing else.)

'The letter' may be part of a 'series', notice that in the painting 'At the concert' or 'A box at the theatre' ( two entirely different places are evoked in the two different titles) the female subject is shown receiving what looks like sheet music and a bunch of brilliant flowers.

Beautiful, a series of paintings from Pierre Auguste Renoir with a hidden meaning related to a 'secret letter delivery service'... and a central painting with two separate titles; one, for the public in general, and another that indicates the 'secret letter delivery service' and the nature of the case.

The Royal Academy noted that the extensive deep dark red area behind the recipient of the pretty letter/sheet music represents a man who 'has been painted out by Renoir'. It's claimed that the painted out figure, stance and fashionable mustache, is just visible behind the deep red paint ( the above colours are Renoir's precise colours.)

It's tempting to conclude (very) that Renoir is depicting Marie Jeanette Kelly (Stuart) and Annie Crook of Cleveland Street in his paintings above and that via Edgar Degas ( who is obviously in Jimmy and Walter's entire confidence about the events of Cleveland Street in the 1880s) he had sufficient evidence to do so, even if he did not witness all the events first hand in the same way as his English confreres. There is another 'letter' painting by Renoir: 'Woman with a letter' which seems very suggestible indeed of Marie Jeanette, and it is completely viable that a Stuart 'pauper princess' sitting on a doorstep in Whitechapel should have had vital appeal to the dite Prince of French impressionism.

Whose features are those, in the painting above? Have 'Stuart' features been specifically suggested in the rendition above, is there an element of expressly purposed idiosyncrasy?

Saturday, 1 September 2012

Sketch of 'the lost prince', by Walter Sickert, inscribed 'IIII Jo' , ( 4 Jo). Apparently Prince Eddy's son, born in the 1880s. From Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection, never before shown to the public until I printed the photos of him ( of said sketches) on my 2007 research blog.

Below, this recently passed through Christies, ' Walter Sickert, sketch for Soldiers of King Albert the Ready'. It would seem that this also is 'Jo', whose death in WWI is described by a witness to Walter Sickert's life, Marjorie Lilly.

It might be regular military wear around Jo's waist in the newly surfaced sketch, orit might be a sketch book there, girded to his waist. Its resemblance to a sketch book stands out from the other military wear in this way. In the top figure there, he's lain like a young child asleep, rather than a young man dead, isn't he, with his fulsome arm up by the side of his head. Evidently Walter struggled to say goodbye to this boy.

Marjorie Lilly, a witness to Walter Sickert's life upon whom experts rely, appears to have met the boy 'Jo' when he was in his early twenties, in 1914. She wrote the following story in her book 'Walter Sickert, the Painter and his Circle' about an experience in 1914:

...' A Special Protege of Sickert's was a boy called Joe; I never knew his surname or whether he possessed any talent for painting. An ex-pupil from the Westminster, he was now a soldier, waiting to be sent to France. There was something very moving about Joe with his round, candid face, his shock of fair hair, and his shy friendly smile; he had such a great capacity for happiness. Whenever he could get leave he would be present on Wednesday's with his girl; sitting side by side, they seldom spoke, and he had no eyes for anyone but the Master. He worshiped Sickert....It was enough for him just to be there, listening and watching, in an ecstasy of wonder. ...

..But Joe was sent to France and in a few weeks he was lying dead with a bullet through his brain.

Christine wrote to his girl and asked her to come and see us on Wednesdays, just as before. The girl answered by thanking Christine for the invitation but she was sure we'd understand, she didn't want to see Fitzroy Street or any of us, ever again.

After Sickert heard of the death of Joe he shut himself up for three days and would not open his door. When he emerged, he never spoke of Joe and no one dared to mention his name.'

Quotation taken from 'Sickert, The Painter and his Circle', Marjorie Lilly, Elek London, 1971.

Marjorie Lilly's book began to be distributed in wide circulation in 1971. Joseph Gorman, later 'Joseph Sickert' publicly emerged in 1972, correctly claiming that he was Walter Sickert's grandson via Walter's love affair with Annie Crook and their daughter Alice Margaret who was born to the couple in 1885. In 1969 Joseph Sickert had already visited the Lessores, and told them he thought he was Walter Sickert's grandson. In 1974 Joseph Sickert received a 'visit' from certain socialites who told him he was in fact the grandson of prince Eddy, which ostensibly he is not, and that Alice Margaret was the daughter of Prince Eddy and the child at the centre of the Whitechapel murders, which ostensibly she was not. Coincidence? Or were people covering up the lost prince Jo's existence?Oh...... look, in the sketch above, which contains two practise runs of dying'Jo' for the painting, the sketch drawn first, at the base of the sketch paper, has no bullet at the side of the head, but the one at the top, in which you can see the tenderness of the sketch, (the boy's lain down like a sleeping child) you can see a mark resembling a bullet wound atthe side of his brain. In the painting rendition you can see the bullet wound on the right side of his head, and you can see the pool of blood above his forehead there.

Wendy Baron has gone into the painting a little, here. She concludes that Walter must have called the Belgian King Albert 'the ready', and remarks that Walter's acquaintance Robert Emmons (who decided that Walter got the idea for the painting from a newspaper) indicated that the painting perhaps extols Belgian heroism in respect of a particular incidence against German invaders of Liege. Emmons or Baron, that is a very minimalistic analysis of the painting isn't it. The Emmons/Baron statement could have been the official version of the painting at the time, in 1914. ( Of course, Walter Sickert, while WWI was going on, being a 'kind of novelist painter', according to his Camden Town and NEAC acquaintance, was so inspired by the little Belgian town of Liege, and felt such a peculiar attachment to it, having never been there in all his life, he couldn't wait to get paint to canvas! ...lol.)

You can see that the background on the right side of the painting is a battlefield, and the background on the left denotes another scenario, perhaps some sort of prison or workhouse in London. There are bars on the window shown, and there's a barrel beneath said window, and there are cobble stones, possibly Fitzrovia cobblestones on the ground. They look very much like the Charlotte Street paving stones that you can still see today.Or could the scenario to the left of the painting represent wars that Ireland or Scotland had been involved in of times past? Perhaps the painting intentionally evokes both Fitzrovia ( Cleveland Street in particular) and wars of times past. The background of the painting seems to be divided in two.As it is with Walter Sickert's painting of Florence Maybrick when she was in Cleveland Street, here-this painting 'L'Americaine' also is divided down the middle- the side on the right ostensibly suggests a plain 1880's background, whereas the side on the left denotes the room which Walter used to capture or reconstruct Cleveland Street of the 1880's, when painting his paintings of 'darling Annie'. (His secret and personal sketches make reference to the Catholic infirmary and the workhouse.)

When the young Prince Eddy went to Cleveland Street, Fitzrovia, in the early 1880's, it was partly to study art and be introduced to the art world via James McNeill Whistler's circle, ( incorporating his art apprentice Walter Sickert) with whom his father 'Bertie' was already aquainted as is well known. Why has Walter painted 'Jo 'with a sketch book girded on as he lies dying....? Suggesting perhaps Jo's own sketches, or his father Prince Eddy's sketches; did 'Jo' take his sketches with him to war, or is it figurative, to suggest he was an artist at heart, even while dying? Even more figurative- does the girded sketch book in the painting contain the story of Jo's birth life and death as told by Walter Sickert?

The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone

In the ranks of death you will find him.

His father's sword he hath girded on,

And his wild harp slung behind him.

......( the song repeated the 'will ye neer come back again' theme:...)

The Minstrel Boy will return we pray

When we hear the news we all will cheer it,

The minstrel boy will return one day,

Torn perhaps in body, not in spirit.

Then may he play on his harp in peace,

In a world such as Heaven intended,

For all the bitterness of man must cease,

And ev'ry battle must be ended.

* An interesting video below showing film reconstructs of wars that Ireleand has been involved in over the ages. 'The Minstral Boy'.

Saturday, 11 August 2012

As ever, while this is still on the blog, you will need to click on some pictures ( most) to see them in full. One of my favorite etchings by Walter Sickert, below, dated 1884. Exquisite character produced from a simple etching. Have you ever seen anyone similar, do you recall?

I've suggested that the painting below is representative of a number of scenarios and that Walter is suggesting that one and the same people, Special Branch police, were responsible for all of them. Firstly the painting evokes tortured Annie; the lady with her hair in a bun in the sketch of the tobacconists at no 21 Cleveland Street where the secret letter delivery service was situated; the man seems at once to be sitting down beside the subject in a pragmatic and detached manner, and from another perspective, to be standing up washing his hands: then it evokes Emily Dimmock, the young woman victim of the 'Camden Town murders', who seems, by Walter's account, to have been murdered by those responsible for Annie's torture; then again it invokes the figure of what was purportedly 'Mary Kelly', as she lay on the bed facing the room ( the painting, from the 'Mary Kelly' perspective, shows the inverse, with the girl facing away, perhaps demonstrating that the bed was at the centre of Miller's Court when all the desecration of the Stuart girl ( or staged arrangement of the same) took place. )

Below, Catharine Eddowes found lain at Mitre square, according to a contemporary police drawing in a newspaper which Walter will have seen.

Likewise, below, in close up.

Below, another painting by Walter Sickert called 'Une Thasse de The' ( Currently at the Aukland Art Galleries) in which he clearly references Catharine 'Kitty' Eddowes. Note that the way Catharine is seated at table is entirely suggestive of the way her corpse was sprawled out over the cobblestones in Mitre Square, having been lain there after being desecrated in a coach driven- according to Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketches- by 'John Charles Netley'.

In the above, Catharine's coat seems to have been done up again from its torn condition, as it was after her death. This doing up of the coat apparently may have happened inside a coach, before her body was deposited at Mitre Square, or it could have happened on the way to the mortuary. Importantly, notice that in Catharine's left hand there is clearly a letter. She was ( as previously described) delivering a letter on behalf of Jacobite/Stuart/Irish confederates on the night she died. Specifically a letter from Prince 'Albert Edward' to Mary Jeanette Kelly. She was intercepted by Special Branch police, who murdered her. In the painting the letter seems, from one perspective, to be being read by some grotesque, almost monkey like figure, and this would seem to be suggestive of Walter's revulsion at such private correspondence being in the hands of murderers intent on espionage ( spying) on the lovers who'd employed Catharine as courier. In Catharine's right hand, there is depicted a cup of tea. (A sardonic gesture if ever there was one, aimed at Special Branch police. How would you like to go to tea with Commissioner Anderson and Chief John Littlechild?)

Here are the original research posts on the secret letter delivery service, and on Walter Sickert and Catharine Eddowes.The post on Cleveland Street in the 1880' here. There was clearly nothing accidental about Catharine's death; she was intercepted by Special Branch police, having betrayed them. The letter she was carrying was destined for Mary Jeanette Kelly, it was from the Prince. It was snatched out of Catharine Eddowes' hands, and her throat was cut.This painting literally places a letter in her hands at the time of her death, on top of all the other evidence for the women being couriers working for the secret letter delivery service. In each of the Inquest papers pertaining to the 'Whitechapel murders', for each woman, there is reference to her throat being cut 'all the way across' the neck, some comments state from 'ear to ear'. ( I'm not going to go into it all now, that is for the website which is being constructed.) The forensic evidence of the assassinations, including that which relates to Freemasonry revenge, does to an extent vary ( very significantly where Freemasonry is concerned) from one woman to another, but this neck feature is found in all five women. It specifically denotes a carefully planned assassination that involved two or three trained/educated people specifically. Why?- Anatomical knowledge of the neck- Restraint of the victimHave a look here at the film reel from the film 'Witness', in which an assassination committed by by police is shown. See how conveniently the process of slitting the throat 'all the way across' serves to instantly stop the blood flow to the heart and therefore massively reduce inconvenient bleeding. See how it requires an ambush from behind and two, or possibly three, men.

..have a look at the anatomy of the neck, which I know you don't like to do, but it's essential here.

See how the external and internal jugular veins situate at the far sides of the neck, and that they carry the supply of blood that is pumped by the heart's strong pump that pushes it all round the body. Severing these jugular veins at the same time as the internal and external carotid arteries is very important if you want the thing to be efficiently done without bleeding from blood pumped by the heart going all over the place. Specifically it cuts of blood supply to the brain. It is more complex, slightly slower than a straightforward stab wound, and the victim is not going to stand there and let you try, so you would need to restrain the victim. And for such restraint you would need one man or two other men. As seen in the helpful film clip. The facts of the corporeal forensic do rule out one lone murderer and imply a duo or threesome ( no more need be present on the spot I would say.) It is surprising that Patricia Cornwell, for all her endless talk about how she has seen forensic evidence, missed this obvious point. The dunderclunk 'ripperologists' miss it daily. Walter has put forward paintings of the 'Ripper' trio, whom he paints with cloths over their faces- one detail from one of those paintings here, showing the woman Annie Chapman's throat being seized from behind her, as letters or letter fragments are scattered all over the stairwell. Is Annie being depicted with her face seized by a cloth here? It seems this can just about be inferred though it's open to interpretation. The assassin or 'Whitechapel murderer' is behind Annie, an artistically huge knife in his left hand , and a letter which he has taken from her in his right, which he holds up. There are letters depicted strewn about the floor. This is Walter's depiction of one of the 'Whitechapel murders'. He clearly is stating that he saw a 'professional job' carried out by Special Branch police.

Notice there are in fact what seems to be two men behind Annie Chapman. You can make out the second man to the left of the Whitechapel murder victim. ( On her right) .He has a bowler style hat and a cloth over his face too. Suggestive of the two police officers Anderson and Littlechild. The second man does seem to be pulling a cloth over Annie Chapman's face.

Isn't that little etching beautiful. Below, the little Amish kid from the film 'Witness' goes to tea with the police.

Another one such, below, from the same collection, but carrying straw bales or bricks perhaps?

Below, a drawing that could be an Amish on the town.... possibly a Danish/German gent out for stroll, seen perhaps during Walter's childhood. ( Is this a tentative drawing by a child or adolescent, or a slightly shaky drawing by an old man, drawn for Walter- Oswald drawing for Walter here?) I think it's a drawing from Walter, that he drew as a child.

Below, an Amish looking style of barn, or perhaps house, a sketch Walter seems to have modeled on his grandfather's paintings. ( There's an 1870/80s top hat in the picture, this is Walter's picture.)

A woman Walter enclosed with this collection, possibly his mother, seen through the eyes of a young boy or early teenager.

Very lovely.

Below, Walter Sickert's father Oswald Adalbert Sickert's painting of a family evacuating, having been made homeless apparently, with their household possessions, possibly on a raft on a river it seems. From another perspective they could be on a street. The men on the bridge could be fishermen, but are they soldiers? Persecuting soldiers disguised in the painting as fishermen. And look at the shape of their persecuting swords. Is this a painting of Oswald Adalbert Sickert's family ( Johann Jurgen Sickert's family) escaping persecution in Europe? Was this family originally a Mennonite/Amish family?

Here, a documentary on the Amish ( originally Mennonites) by a young girl, which goes into the European persecution:

It seems that the Mennonite/Amish evacuation on the ship 'The Charming Nancy' ( you can instantly see why that ship's name would have appealed to Walter) was slightly too early for Walter Sickert's grandfather Johann Sickert, being in 1737. Nonetheless you can expect Johann Sickert to have recalled instruction about the persecution in that era from his own father, can't you. In this age where ( since the mid 1950s) artists are intimidated into accepting that discarding one's parents like an old shoe is a norm from which socially unacceptable deviance must be punished, it's hard for people to conceive of historical priorities as well as form and technique being repeatedly passed from artistic father to son but they were apparently in the Sickert family. The painting by Oswald Sickert of the escaping family would probably be of his own family escaping Germany during the 1866 Austro Prussian war. ( Outlined here.) They do look like Prussian soldiers / Bismark's soldiers on the bridge there, don't they. This painting would suggest that Walter's family's exit from Germany was more dramatic than previously considered- (and why not, there was a serious war on).

He married Nelly, a first generation love child, daughter of Richard Sheepshanks and an Irish dancer, and Walter was their son.

Walter as often called a 'contradiction in terms' where his love life was concerned; a philanderer who was very strict about the sanctity of marriage. Here the mystery seems to be solved. Sickert transcriblit.

There are few paintings by Johann Jurgen Sickert, Walter's grandfather, in the public domain. The following is called 'The interior of a barn'.

The following by Johann Jurgen Sickert is titled 'Hay stooks in a meadow.' Interesting how the 'stooks' are menacing and personalized: soldier like, they stand sentinel outside a harmless farmer's field, they loom and spy like the persecutors of the persecuted Mennonite/Amish people.

The following Johann Jurgen Sickert painting is titled 'The Road to the North':

There is no formal record as to Johann Jurgen's appearance, though some of Walter's secret sketches do suggest him. I will check them out.

The association with the Mennonite/Amish might be the reason for the title of the painting of the persecuted/tortured woman, ( Annie Crook) 'La Hollandaise' (here). The Tate makes another interesting suggestion as the the title ( see link) but on the whole it's been a mystery for a while. (In the mirror behind the female subject of 'La Hollandaise', you can see a woman sitting at a table in a chair with her back to us who appears to be facing a corrupt interrogator across a table.)